National Republican., 1887-01-28
INJUNCTION REFUSED.
The Court Finds No other Alternative
Than to Deny the Application.

Than to Deny the Application.
The case Of stiles VS.. the National Life
and Maturity Association Of this city, In
which the plaintiffs sought for restraining
order to prevent the defendant corporation
from paying surrender value on It's ma
turity certificates, and further to prevent
the corporation from lapslng the certificates
held by the plaintiffs IN case dues aud as
sessments were not paid, came before jus
tice Merrlck in the equity court yesterday
morning, Judge Willoughby appearing for
the plaintiffs, and Messrs. shelabarger aud
Wilson and John b. Larner, esq, for the
defendants. Contrary to expectation the
association filed q full and specific answer
to the bill, instead OF a demurrer, showing
that II was prepared to meet the issue fully
and on It's merits. In support Of It's answer
the defendants cited high authorities, re.
ferring TO decisions that covered the several
points raised by the plaintiffs, and showing
that these same issues had been Joined In
other instances, and had one and all been
decided by courts whose decisions are held
as binding as settling points upon which
they adjudicate.
In rendering his decision, which he did
very briefly after the conclusion of the ar
gument, Justice Merrick covered both the
general principles involved aud the partic-
ular issues raised, as will be seen from the
following transcript of his ruling, In which,
In his usual terse yet clear style, he refuses
the Injunction asked and sets forth his
opinion that the plaintiffs have not such q
case as entities them to the relief aslel
"ln the present aspect Of the case" said JUS
tice Merrick, al have simply to consider
whether such n case is made out OF the re-
| lations OF the parties complainant, con-
| tractors with this company, and the com
| pany itself, as justlGes the injunction prayed
| for. Upon general principles II Is very
| clear to my mind that there is no such
| equity. But whatever might have been the
| result on general principles, am entirely
relieved Of all difficulty by the quotation OF
the two cases from the annual reports In
New York for application to restrain mu
tual insurance company from the perform
ance of certain acts which were to
the detriment Of the party concerned.
II anybody would have special interest In
corporate transactions as such, 1t would be
| party who was interested in n mutual In
surance company, because he has a direct
interest, to the extent Of his Insurance, 10
the profits and losses which may occur,
and would. II ANYBODY had, possess til,
right TO control or intervene In case Of am
misapplication of the funds OF the concern
or in case Of any such gross msmanage
ment as would put him In the predlcamen
| to Justify q court Of chancery In interven
ing. Certainly this party does not stand II
any better predicament than the part.
stood to the mutual insurance companie
In the cases cited. There seemed to be n
hesitation in the inds of the very loarne
chancellors In those cases that such cas-
was not presented to them as called for tn
interposition OF court OF equity. Unde
these circumstances, have no other alter
native than to refuse the application 10
relief, as prayed"